Introduction and Aims: Currently, multiple femoral component types and sizes exist for primary total hip arthroplasty. However, component sizes for small femoral geometry are generally not available. The purpose of this study is to present the short-term use of a femoral component with sizes that extend into small femoral morphometry applications.

Method: Between November 2001 and December 2003, 20 primary THA cases and three revision THA cases were performed utilising a non-cemented, dual threaded, cone shaped (DTCS) modular femoral component manufactured in off-the-shelf sizes, which include those sizes for small femora. The components are made of CoCr and include a size ‘Z’ (19mm proximal, 9mm distal) and a size ‘Y’ (17mm proximal, 8mm distal). Both components have hydroxyapatite coating for stimulating increased bone on-growth and a modular neck allowing intra-operative adjustments of leg length, version, offset and neck length.

Results: The average patient follow-up was 10 months (range 64 days to 27 months). There were 19 (83%) hips in which the ‘Z’ component was used, and four (17%) hips with the ‘Y’ component. Radiographic evaluation revealed well-fixed and positioned components with evidence of bone densing in areas in intimate contact with the DTCS component. Radiographic evidence of minor stress shielding was observed in the greater trochanter (Gruen Zone 1) and the proximal calcar/neck cut region (Gruen Zone 7). Two revision cases (8%) required the additional use of a 6cm modular extension component (MEC) to bridge a proximal femoral deficiency. Two cases (8%) required adjunctive strut allografting at the time of surgery to protect a thin or deficient femoral cortex. There were no reported postoperative complications related to the femoral component. There was no disassociation of the modular neck from the femoral stem and there was no incidence of femoral component fracture.

Conclusion: While expanding component profile offerings into larger sizes is common, developing similar component designs for abnormally small femora is uncommon, beyond the scope of the materials used and only done as a ‘custom’ order. The DTCS modular femoral component used affords a versatile option when presented with cases involving small femoral morphometry. We conclude that the DTCS component in smaller sizes is promising and warranted for continued use.